George,
In your posting of 21 Mar you wrote:
"But let me be blunt. Your argument that was based on humans being
enemies of God &c has turned out to be a vague generality."
On the contrary, I believe it is particularly apposite to the whole
debate, as it is currently conducted. Allow me to explain:
Carefully conducted numerical and lexical analyses of the Bible's first
verse in the original Hebrew
suggest that it is the most remarkable combination of words - and of
letters - ever written. It is a
living testimony to the truth of the recently-discussed biblical
strictures concerning man that few
are prepared to examine and comment upon a claim that has, potentially,
such far-reaching
implications in the current debate. Normally, the curiosity of your man
of learning knows no bounds -
particularly if he is scientifically trained. In addition, one would
expect the emergence of
phenomena predicated on the activity of a supernatural hand to generate
great excitement among church
leaders, and a general clamour to know more. Alas, nothing could be
further from the truth. In each
case the converse obtains. Such behaviour is not only unnatural but, I
suggest, completely illogical.
Without doubt, the biblically-predicted flaw in man's mental processes
is overwhelmingly confirmed,
and it follows that all opinion that undermines the Scriptures - whether
express or implied - must be
regarded with suspicion.
Rather than Science being regarded as the _dominant_ partner in man's
quest for truth, logic suggests
that this role properly belongs to the Bible. My findings confirm God's
sovereignty - and sovereign
purposes. They convince me that the Judaeo-Christian Scriptures
represent divinely revealed truth,
without which man - by divine definition - is quite incapable of
arriving at the verities concerning
how we and the cosmos came to be. I therefore regard your faith in
'atomic clocks' to be misplaced.
George, I would be interested to hear why you regard the
numero-geometrical structures and letter
patterns that underpin the integrity of Genesis 1:1 as phenomena of such
little consequence - and
unworthy of proper evaluation.
Shalom,
Vernon
Also, new page on Gen.1:1 letter patterns:
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/Letr_Sym.htm
George Murphy wrote:
> Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
> > George,
> >
> > Just a few points in response to your posting of 16 Mar:
> >
> > 1) You said, " 'Original sin' is no euphemism but a summary description of the fact that all
> > human beings start life in the condition that you describe." Clearly, we shall have to agree
> > to disagree re the substitution of "original sin" for "enemy of God, creature of evil
> > imaginations, deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked".
>
> You can disagree if you wish but I don't see what we're disagreeing about. I am not
> "substituting" original sin for "enemy of God" &c but using the term - as Christians have for
> ~1500 years - to speak of the fact that all human beings start out life as enemies of God &c. If
> you wish I can quote all the biblical statements about the character of sin every time the phrase
> is sued but that get's a little clumsy.
> > However, you seem to imply
> > that the situation changes when one becomes a Christian. Is it your understanding that these
> > biblical strictures cease to apply when we commit ourselves to Christ?
>
> The situation changes - cf. Ephesians 2:1-10 - though Christians continue to sin.
>
> > 2) I had said, "...as a physicist, you will know that the step from 'observation' to
> > 'interpretation' involves certain (usually unwritten) assumptions." You responded,
> > "Certainly. So point out the incorrect interpretations involved in radiometric dating which
> > lead to an age of ~4.5 x 10^9 years....Show what's wrong with the scientific argument."
> We were speaking of _assumptions_. And you agreed that such estimates of age rest on assumptions -
> and hence call for a degree of _faith_. You will know better than I what might be wrong
> > with the scientific argument here. Is it really faultless?
>
> Sure there are assumptions about decay rates, abundances, formation of nuclei &c. They &
> the conclusions drawn from them hold together pretty well. As with any scientific theory, this
> is evaluated in terms of its results, not the _a priori_ plausibility of its initial hypotheses.
> But let me be blunt. Your argument that was based on humans being enemies of God &c has
> turned out to be a vague generality. You're unwilling to say anything specific about the age of
> the earth, just that maybe we're wrong. Maybe Caesar never lived & is just a collective illusion
> produced by sin. You can prove everything and nothing that way.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
> George L. Murphy
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> "The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 24 2002 - 18:59:20 EST